Objective: To develop and validate a Belgian Dutch outcome tool for the perceptual evaluation of speech in patients with cleft palate. Setting: Cleft palate team in a tertiary university hospital. Methods: The tool was based on the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech–Augmented (John et al., 2006; Sell et al., 2009), with adaptations to some of the speech variables and the structured listening protocol. Following a preliminary listening experiment in phase 1, the tool was optimized. In the second phase, a listening experiment with 4 experienced listeners was set up to assess face validity, inter- and intrarater reliability and criterion validity. Results: Results of phase 1 indicated good to very good inter- and intrarater reliability for the majority of the speech variables, good discriminant validity, and varying sensitivity and specificity based on a comparison with nasalance values and the Nasality Severity Index 2.0 (criterion validity). Results of phase 2 showed good to very good interrater reliability for 5 of the 14 variables and good intrarater reliability in 3 of the 4 experienced listeners. Sensitivity and specificity were sufficient, except the specificity of the hypernasality judgments in comparison with the nasalance values of the oral text. Overall, listeners positively judged the face validity of the tool. Conclusion: The 2-phase evaluation indicated varying validity and reliability results. Future studies will aim to optimize validity and reliability of the developed tool based on adaptations to the listening protocol, the addition of speech variables, and the inclusion of a more elaborate training.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Relationships between malocclusion and orofacial myofunctional disorders (OMD), as well as malocclusions and articulation disorders (AD) have been described, though the exact relationships remain unclear. Given the high prevalence of these disorders in children, more clarity is needed. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> The purpose of this study was to determine the association between OMD (specifically, bruxism, deviate swallowing, caudal resting tongue posture, and biting habits), AD, and malocclusions in children and adolescents aged between 3 and 18 years. To conduct a systematic review, 4 databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus). The identified articles were screened for the eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from the selected articles and quality assessment was performed using the tool of Munn et al. [Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3:123–81] in consensus. Using the search strategy, the authors identified 2,652 articles after the removal of duplicates. After reviewing the eligibility criteria, 17 articles were included in this study. One of the included articles was deemed to have an unclear risk of bias, whereas all other articles were considered to have a low risk of bias. The articles showed a relationship between anterior open bite and apico-alveolar articulatory distortions, as well as between anterior open bite and deviate swallowing. For the biting habits, bruxism, and low tongue position no clear conclusions could be drawn. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> The current review suggests a link between specific types of malocclusion and OMD and AD. However, more high-quality evidence (level 1 and level 2, Oxford Levels of Evidence) is needed to clarify the cooccurrence of other OMD, AD, and malocclusions.

No abstract

PurposeTo identify how speech‐language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States are screening for and identifying dysphagia. To do this, we examined the approaches most often used to screen for dysphagia and the influence of contextual factors such as setting, continuing education and means of staying up to date with the most current literature on screening approaches.MethodA web‐based survey composed of 32 questions was developed and field tested for content, relevance and workflow. The survey was distributed online, via social media, online SLP forums and through the American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association's Special Interest Group 13 (swallowing disorders). One hundred and thirty‐seven clinicians from the United States completed the survey and were included for analysis using descriptive statistics and linear regression modelling to assess associations of continuing education and years practicing with screening protocols and consumption of evidence.ResultsRespondents worked in a variety of settings, including acute care, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation. Most respondents worked with adult populations (88%). The most common screening protocols reported were a volume‐dependent water swallow test (74%), subjective patient report (66%), and trials of solids/liquids (49%). Twenty‐four percent (24%) reported using a questionnaire, the Eating Assessment Tool (80%) being most common. How clinicians consume their evidence was significantly associated with the types of screening approaches used. Continuing education hours were significantly associated with dysphagia screening protocol choice (p < 0.001) and how clinicians stayed up to date with evidence (p < 0.001).ConclusionsResults from this study provide an in‐depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding how to effectively screen patients for the presence of dysphagia. Contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns should serve researchers to continue seeking alternative ways to share evidence with clinicians, accessibly. Associations between continuing education and protocol choice show the need for continued evidence‐based and high‐quality continuing education opportunities.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS This study provides an in‐depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding effective dysphagia screening practices. Clinician screening choices are examined with contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns and continuing education. This paper increases knowledge of the most used dysphagia screening practices and context for clinicians and researchers to improve use, evidence and dissemination of best practices.

No abstract